Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[werothegreat]

"A sifter is a card that draws and discards, in either order, or reveals/looks at cards from your deck with the option of discarding them, so as to cycle through your deck to get to more desirable cards."

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Sifter

Hamlet and Plaza sift.  True, NV doesn't technically sift in this manner, but it's got a sift-y vibe to it.

[WanderingWinder]

Hamlet and Plaza aren't sifters. If you have a definition which says otherwise, the definition is flawed.

[Donald X.]

"A sifter is a card that draws and discards, in either order, or reveals/looks at cards from your deck with the option of discarding them, so as to cycle through your deck to get to more desirable cards."

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Sifter

Hamlet and Plaza sift.  True, NV doesn't technically sift in this manner, but it's got a sift-y vibe to it.

This is just you quoting yourself, right?

[Awaclus]

"A sifter is a card that draws and discards, in either order, or reveals/looks at cards from your deck with the option of discarding them, so as to cycle through your deck to get to more desirable cards."

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Sifter

Hamlet and Plaza sift.  True, NV doesn't technically sift in this manner, but it's got a sift-y vibe to it.

But it still needs to sift at least 2 cards because otherwise you get better sifting by just buying nothing instead of the Hamlet or Plaza.

[RTT]

if Hamlet is a sifter then great hall is also one 

[werothegreat]

I actually didn't write that definition.  Well, probably edited it.  If you think it's wrong, feel free to change it; I was just going with what was there.  Contrary to popular belief, I have not written the entire wiki on my own.

[werothegreat]

If you need to draw/discard at least 2 cards, then how does WM compare to Inn?

[LastFootnote]

I think any card that both draws cards and then forces you to discard cards is a sifter. I would call Oasis a sifter. Barely.

Any card that lets you discard (ostensibly) bad cards from the top of your deck is also a sifter. Wandering Minstrel, Cartographer, and Jack of All Trades are sifters.

Perhaps it is useful to distinguish between the first category (hand sifters) and the second (deck sifters). They both serve a similar purpose, though: getting past your bad cards to your good cards.

Hamlet and Plaza are not sifters. They're vaults, really. They allow you to discard cards for a benefit.

[Awaclus]

If you need to draw/discard at least 2 cards, then how does WM compare to Inn?

It's cheaper, doesn't decrease your handsize and it's not annoying when you don't have any junk in your hand. On the other hand, its sifting is useless for the current turn unless you have another card in your hand that draws more cards, and it doesn't have the on-gain ability. But generally, they're pretty similar, and unless you're heavily relying on Inn's on-gain or Wandering Minstrel's low cost, whatever strategy you can do with one of the cards probably works just as well with the other.

[werothegreat]

I think any card that both draws cards and then forces you to discard cards is a sifter. I would call Oasis a sifter. Barely.

Any card that lets you discard (ostensibly) bad cards from the top of your deck is also a sifter. Wandering Minstrel, Cartographer, and Jack of All Trades are sifters.

Perhaps it is useful to distinguish between the first category (hand sifters) and the second (deck sifters). They both serve a similar purpose, though: getting past your bad cards to your good cards.

Hamlet and Plaza are not sifters. They're vaults, really. They allow you to discard cards for a benefit.

Taking this (and others' opinions) into consideration, I did some editing of the sifter article and added a new discard for benefit article.  Any objections to that as a name?  I figured it was pretty descriptive, and in line with "trash for benefit".

If you still don't like it, well, it's a wiki, so, feel free to change it.

[markusin]

The big question is, how much of a sifter is Pearl Diver?

[Gherald]

The big question is, how much of a sifter is Pearl Diver?

No, that's the last question. But you can choose to make it the top question.

[werothegreat]

The big question is, how much of a sifter is Pearl Diver?

No, that's the last question. But you can choose to make it the top question.

If you don't, you'll have to stare at it five more times because you got crap hands too often from buying all the Pearl Divers.

[Awaclus]

If you don't, you'll have to stare at it five more times because you got crap hands too often from buying all the Pearl Divers.

Pearl Diver is a cantrip. Buying them doesn't cause crap hands.

[LastFootnote]

If you don't, you'll have to stare at it five more times because you got crap hands too often from buying all the Pearl Divers.

Pearl Diver is a cantrip. Buying them doesn't cause crap hands.

Unless there's Militia.

[werothegreat]

If you don't, you'll have to stare at it five more times because you got crap hands too often from buying all the Pearl Divers.

Pearl Diver is a cantrip. Buying them doesn't cause crap hands.

Yeah, well, it was after midnight when I posted that.  And I was thinking like a Village Idiot sort of thing.  Your hands aren't as good as they would have been if you'd actually bought something useful.

[WanderingWinder]

If you need to draw/discard at least 2 cards, then how does WM compare to Inn?

I don't think I actually understand the question. I don't accept the premise of needing to draw/discard at least 2 cards - why do I need to do that? Obviously if I truly need to, WM can't ensure that I draw two? So I assume I am missing the point of what you're trying to ask - I'm confused :/

If you need to draw/discard at least 2 cards, then how does WM compare to Inn?

It's cheaper, doesn't decrease your handsize and it's not annoying when you don't have any junk in your hand. On the other hand, its sifting is useless for the current turn unless you have another card in your hand that draws more cards, and it doesn't have the on-gain ability. But generally, they're pretty similar, and unless you're heavily relying on Inn's on-gain or Wandering Minstrel's low cost, whatever strategy you can do with one of the cards probably works just as well with the other.

I disagree pretty heartily. Minstrel's play effect is just much, much better than Inn's (at least without draw-to-X), because it's card-neutral, whereas Inn leaves you down a card.

[werothegreat]

If you need to draw/discard at least 2 cards, then how does WM compare to Inn?

I don't think I actually understand the question. I don't accept the premise of needing to draw/discard at least 2 cards - why do I need to do that? Obviously if I truly need to, WM can't ensure that I draw two? So I assume I am missing the point of what you're trying to ask - I'm confused :/

*bangs head on desk repeatedly*

[WanderingWinder]

If you need to draw/discard at least 2 cards, then how does WM compare to Inn?

I don't think I actually understand the question. I don't accept the premise of needing to draw/discard at least 2 cards - why do I need to do that? Obviously if I truly need to, WM can't ensure that I draw two? So I assume I am missing the point of what you're trying to ask - I'm confused :/

*bangs head on desk repeatedly*

I'm really not trying to frustrate you - I actually don't understand what you were trying to ask there.

[jsh357]

I think what WW is getting at is, what kind of circumstance are you even talking about?  Inn and WM in the same hand?  That seems like a really small sample size of cases.  You probably wouldn't buy Inn over WM just because it 'draws' two more cards most of the time.  If both are on the board, you are going to buy WM more often because it's cheaper and nets more cards in hand than Inn does.  Sure, there might be some random hand down the line where you think 'man, I wish I could draw 2 cards with this Minstrel,' but that is one turn where that happened whereas your other turns were likely improved by having Minstrels instead of Inns.

[werothegreat]

If you need to draw/discard at least 2 cards, then how does WM compare to Inn?

I don't think I actually understand the question. I don't accept the premise of needing to draw/discard at least 2 cards - why do I need to do that? Obviously if I truly need to, WM can't ensure that I draw two? So I assume I am missing the point of what you're trying to ask - I'm confused :/

*bangs head on desk repeatedly*

I'm really not trying to frustrate you - I actually don't understand what you were trying to ask there.

Was really trying to stimulate discussion.  I guess I did, but I was hoping it would be about comparing cards, and not card category definitions.

I think what WW is getting at is, what kind of circumstance are you even talking about?  Inn and WM in the same hand?  That seems like a really small sample size of cases.  You probably wouldn't buy Inn over WM just because it 'draws' two more cards most of the time.  If both are on the board, you are going to buy WM more often because it's cheaper and nets more cards in hand than Inn does.  Sure, there might be some random hand down the line where you think 'man, I wish I could draw 2 cards with this Minstrel,' but that is one turn where that happened whereas your other turns were likely improved by having Minstrels instead of Inns.

I wasn't asking about a WM/Inn DEATHMATCH, more just which situations each is better in, how they compare.  How a kingdom with WM versus the same kingdom but with Inn instead would function.

EDIT: Ah, finally get it.  Awaclus had said that sifters (at least, hand sifters) should draw/discard at least 2 cards.  My aim had been to get discussion going on the merits of different sifting villages, which the definition I had been going with included Hamlet and Plaza.

[Awaclus]

If you don't, you'll have to stare at it five more times because you got crap hands too often from buying all the Pearl Divers.

Pearl Diver is a cantrip. Buying them doesn't cause crap hands.

Yeah, well, it was after midnight when I posted that.  And I was thinking like a Village Idiot sort of thing.  Your hands aren't as good as they would have been if you'd actually bought something useful.

Well, usually the reason why you have a Pearl Diver is because you didn't have enough money to buy something actually useful.